Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Solutions (USA), Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10507
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Aponte sued DHL alleging gender-based discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII and Puerto Rico law; the jury awarded $350,000 in emotional distress damages.
- The district court remitted the damages to $200,000 after finding evidence supported liability but not the award amount.
- Aponte began at DHL in 2000; supervision by Frias (2004) and Camacho included alleged gender-based comments and policies creating a hostile climate.
- Aponte filed internal complaints in 2004 and 2006; after returning from leaves, she alleged persistent harassment and ultimately resigned in June 2006.
- On appeal, DHL challenges sufficiency of the evidence for the hostile environment claim, the remittitur amount, and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for hostile environment | Aponte: harassment was severe and pervasive due to gender-based derogatory conduct. | DHL: evidence did not show gender-based severe/pervasive harassment. | Evidence supports a hostile environment. |
| Faragher defense viability | Employer failed to provide prompt, corrective action despite complaints. | DHL acted promptly and corrected conditions; Faragher defense should apply. | Faragher defense not clearly applicable; remand not required. |
| Remittitur reasonableness | Remittitur undervalues the emotional distress suffered. | District court properly remitted to align with comparable awards. | District court did not abuse its discretion; $200,000 supported by evidence and comparables. |
| Evidentiary rulings on refreshed recollections and curative instructions | Refreshers and curative instructions were proper and necessary to present the record. | Challenged rulings were improper and prejudicial. | No abuse of discretion; rulings proper and harmless. |
| Promotion/constructive discharge testimony | Promotion non-event evidence supported damages history; constructive discharge mentioned. | Evidence misled jury; should have been curatively instructed. | Court did not abuse discretion; jury was properly instructed to focus on hostile work environment damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (establishes the standard for hostile environment under Title VII)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability framework (Faragher defense))
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (supervisor harassment and vicarious liability framework)
- White v. N. H. Dep't of Corrections, 221 F.3d 254 (1st Cir. 2000) (evidence of improper handling can support damages findings)
- Monteagudo v. Asociacion de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 554 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2009) (upholds substantial emotional distress damages in harassment case)
- Koster v. Trans World Airlines, 181 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (upholding damages where evidence supported emotional distress)
- Sanchez v. P.R. Oil Co., 37 F.3d 712 (1st Cir. 1994) (comparative damages and evidentiary considerations in discrimination claims)
- Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing remittitur and damages awards)